DVDActive uses cookies to remember your actions, such as your answer in the poll. Cookies are
also used by third-parties for statistics, social media and advertising. By using this website, it is
assumed that you agree to this.

Warner Home Video has now brought forward the release by a week to July 21

Further Details:
Warner Home Video has officially announced a 1-disc DVD ($28.99), a 2-disc Director's Cut DVD ($34.99), and a 2-disc Director's Cut Blu-ray ($35.99) release of Watchmen. Each will be available to own from the 21st July. As far as we know, no extra material will be included on the 1-disc DVD release. The 2-disc DVD will include (as well as the directors cut with 25 minutes of additional footage) a The Phenomenon: The Comic that Changed Comics featurette, 30 minutes of Video Journals, a My Chemical Romance Desolation Row music video, and a digital copy of the theatrical version. The Blu-ray release will include all of that, along with 2 additional featurettes ("Real Super Heroes, Real Vigilantes", "Mechanics: Technologies of a Fantastic World"), 30 minutes of Watchmen Focus Points, and a Warner Bros. Maximum Movie Mode. We've attached the artwork below:

Advertisements

Comments

Reply

Message

Enter the message here then press submit. The username, password and message are required. Please make the message constructive, you are fully responsible for the legality of anything you contribute. Terms & conditions apply.

BoBoi wrote: lee09 wrote: Its all a matter of preference. Lossless might be lossless but you can't help the fact to comprehend that DTS has always sounded clearer and much crispier than anything Dolby Digital related. You should see how that is an improvement, shouldn't be so ignorant, this is the first Warner Blu-ray disc to feature a DTS-HD Master Audio track. If Warner choose that encoding soundtrack is because it will obviously be the ultimate sounding experience. Warner chooses? This is only an one-off case, and it's highly likely that Zack Snyder was the one that chose to use DTS-MA. Same thing with Spielberg on Close Encounters release.

It's not an improvement. There is no more 'kick' on DTS-MA. DTS and Dolby are encoding technologies, they are not doing the encoding, all they are doing is providing the studio their technology. It depends on the studio master and the team who is doing the encoding. There are plenty of TrueHD tracks that are far better than DTS-MA tracks, and vice versa.

Ignorant huh? It's pretty ignorant to suggest that one lossless codec is more efficient than others. That is ignorant at the highest level.

lee09 wrote: By the way BoBoi, any real audiophile would have much preferred a The Dark Knight Blu-ray edition with a nice kick of DTS-HD Master Audio. Am saying that because of your signature pic.

And p.s! If I were to be talking about SD DVD I would have mentioned the Batman Anthology carrying one, but since this is Blu-ray and its an HD Master Audio soundtrack and the first WB Blu-ray to carry one, things can't be on the same relating level, now can it? Real audiophiles? You mean you? There are as many Reference TrueHD tracks as there are for DTS-MA. And no, no real audiophiles would want DTS-MA on TDK, because the True-HD track on TDK is already at reference level.

Same relation? What are you talking about? I mentioned that to simply suggest that Warner used DTS before. And of course there are differences between DTS and DD on SD, since DTS on SD is capable of much higher bitrate than DD. It's not the same on HD, since both have the same capabilities of encoding lossless audio at similar/same bitrate.

Please, just bite your tongue, because you obviously don't know what your talking about. The Dark Knight should be entitled to sound more profoundly dynamic coming from a DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1 source than anything Dolby, no matter if its TrueHD. I love both codecs, but DTS has always taken the win. It's fine by me if you can't accept it, I know you're a TrueHD fanboy, but yes!, any real audiophile can prove you out that DTS is and will always be the ultimate in surround sound experience. Enough said.

Grifter02 wrote: lee09 wrote: I take it that by that remark your giving you must be a Dolby fanboy and/or a DTS basher? Im not a fanboy to anything relating DTS, am in between when it comes to soundtrack encodes, but if I had to choose between Dolby and DTS, it will obviously be DTS. To me it has always had a more satisfying soundstage. Something Dolby would have a hard time competing with. It can't be helped. Its as easy as that.

You should take from my remark that I don't take sides in this silly "codec war" because lossless = lossless = lossless. You can't tell me you think DTS lossless is better than Dolby lossless and then tell me you're not a DTS fanboy.

Anyway, as I said, it's pointless trying to enlighten people like you on simple mathematics (ie. 2 + 2 = 4, every time, no matter what, it doesn't = 3 because you used a Dolby calculator instead of a DTS calculator), so I'm not going to reply to you again. I just wanted to clear up my stance on the topic.

Your previous remark and now your new opinion that you don't take sides on the "codec war" seems very contradicting from your part. The first response felt you were very much in favor of TrueHD instead. But anyhow, I love DTS and as I mentioned before I very much prefer it over TrueHD but I can't say am a enthusiastic fanboy of it like you on TrueHD for instance. The scenario you tried to used is very ludicrous, ha ha. (Dolby calculator instead of a DTS calculator) What the hell? lol

lee09 wrote: Its all a matter of preference. Lossless might be lossless but you can't help the fact to comprehend that DTS has always sounded clearer and much crispier than anything Dolby Digital related. You should see how that is an improvement, shouldn't be so ignorant, this is the first Warner Blu-ray disc to feature a DTS-HD Master Audio track. If Warner choose that encoding soundtrack is because it will obviously be the ultimate sounding experience. Warner chooses? This is only an one-off case, and it's highly likely that Zack Snyder was the one that chose to use DTS-MA. Same thing with Spielberg on Close Encounters release.

It's not an improvement. There is no more 'kick' on DTS-MA. DTS and Dolby are encoding technologies, they are not doing the encoding, all they are doing is providing the studio their technology. It depends on the studio master and the team who is doing the encoding. There are plenty of TrueHD tracks that are far better than DTS-MA tracks, and vice versa.

Ignorant huh? It's pretty ignorant to suggest that one lossless codec is more efficient than others. That is ignorant at the highest level.

lee09 wrote: By the way BoBoi, any real audiophile would have much preferred a The Dark Knight Blu-ray edition with a nice kick of DTS-HD Master Audio. Am saying that because of your signature pic.

And p.s! If I were to be talking about SD DVD I would have mentioned the Batman Anthology carrying one, but since this is Blu-ray and its an HD Master Audio soundtrack and the first WB Blu-ray to carry one, things can't be on the same relating level, now can it? Real audiophiles? You mean you? There are as many Reference TrueHD tracks as there are for DTS-MA. And no, no real audiophiles would want DTS-MA on TDK, because the True-HD track on TDK is already at reference level.

Same relation? What are you talking about? I mentioned that to simply suggest that Warner used DTS before. And of course there are differences between DTS and DD on SD, since DTS on SD is capable of much higher bitrate than DD. It's not the same on HD, since both have the same capabilities of encoding lossless audio at similar/same bitrate.

lee09 wrote: I take it that by that remark your giving you must be a Dolby fanboy and/or a DTS basher? Im not a fanboy to anything relating DTS, am in between when it comes to soundtrack encodes, but if I had to choose between Dolby and DTS, it will obviously be DTS. To me it has always had a more satisfying soundstage. Something Dolby would have a hard time competing with. It can't be helped. Its as easy as that.

You should take from my remark that I don't take sides in this silly "codec war" because lossless = lossless = lossless. You can't tell me you think DTS lossless is better than Dolby lossless and then tell me you're not a DTS fanboy.

Anyway, as I said, it's pointless trying to enlighten people like you on simple mathematics (ie. 2 + 2 = 4, every time, no matter what, it doesn't = 3 because you used a Dolby calculator instead of a DTS calculator), so I'm not going to reply to you again. I just wanted to clear up my stance on the topic.

BoBoi wrote: lee09 wrote: DTS-HD MA? OMG, Wow Warner we are definitely improving our discs! Way to go! :D I don't really see how this is an improvement. I mean lossless is lossless, hence PCM = TrueHD = DTS-MA, in terms of their efficiency. The only benefits I see for using DTS-MA is for those who still use optical and they can get DTS Full Bitrate 1.5 Mbps instead of DD 640 Kbps.

But yeah it's rare for Warner to use DTS, I remembered the last time they did was probably for Batman Anthology (SD Release).

Its all a matter of preference. Lossless might be lossless but you can't help the fact to comprehend that DTS has always sounded clearer and much crispier than anything Dolby Digital related. You should see how that is an improvement, shouldn't be so ignorant, this is the first Warner Blu-ray disc to feature a DTS-HD Master Audio track. If Warner choose that encoding soundtrack is because it will obviously be the ultimate sounding experience.

Grifter02 wrote: BoBoi, don't bother trying to explain the concept of lossless codecs to the DTS fanboys, it's over their heads.

I take it that by that remark your giving you must be a Dolby fanboy and/or a DTS basher? Im not a fanboy to anything relating DTS, am in between when it comes to soundtrack encodes, but if I had to choose between Dolby and DTS, it will obviously be DTS. To me it has always had a more satisfying soundstage. Something Dolby would have a hard time competing with. It can't be helped. Its as easy as that.

BoBoi wrote: lee09 wrote: DTS-HD MA? OMG, Wow Warner we are definitely improving our discs! Way to go! :D I don't really see how this is an improvement. I mean lossless is lossless, hence PCM = TrueHD = DTS-MA, in terms of their efficiency. The only benefits I see for using DTS-MA is for those who still use optical and they can get DTS Full Bitrate 1.5 Mbps instead of DD 640 Kbps.

But yeah it's rare for Warner to use DTS, I remembered the last time they did was probably for Batman Anthology (SD Release).

By the way BoBoi, any real audiophile would have much preferred a The Dark Knight Blu-ray edition with a nice kick of DTS-HD Master Audio. Am saying that because of your signature pic.

And p.s! If I were to be talking about SD DVD I would have mentioned the Batman Anthology carrying one, but since this is Blu-ray and its an HD Master Audio soundtrack and the first WB Blu-ray to carry one, things can't be on the same relating level, now can it?

BoBoi, don't bother trying to explain the concept of lossless codecs to the DTS fanboys, it's over their heads.

yankeemike81 wrote: may wanna put a update in there that the blu ray directers cut will include the Watchmen the end is Nigh for ps3

and by the way ill say this again digital copies arent bad i prefere them over ripping cause i have to worry bout watermarks in dvds and or video audio being out of sync but with digital copys i know i get a good portable copy right out of the bat.

No, the Blu-Ray does not include The End is Nigh for PS3. There will be a separate combo pack that contains both, and it'll cost $60.

What watermarks do you get from ripping your own movies? You must be using some bad software, especially if your A/V is out of sync.

lee09 wrote: DTS-HD MA? OMG, Wow Warner we are definitely improving our discs! Way to go! :D I don't really see how this is an improvement. I mean lossless is lossless, hence PCM = TrueHD = DTS-MA, in terms of their efficiency. The only benefits I see for using DTS-MA is for those who still use optical and they can get DTS Full Bitrate 1.5 Mbps instead of DD 640 Kbps.

But yeah it's rare for Warner to use DTS, I remembered the last time they did was probably for Batman Anthology (SD Release).

may wanna put a update in there that the blu ray directers cut will include the Watchmen the end is Nigh for ps3

and by the way ill say this again digital copies arent bad i prefere them over ripping cause i have to worry bout watermarks in dvds and or video audio being out of sync but with digital copys i know i get a good portable copy right out of the bat.

I hate the digital copy logo. It's stupid and it takes away from the cover. I've only used a digital copy once for The Dark Knight and even then I only watched it on my iPod one time. I prefer it on an HDTV, thanks.

I also wanna know if the Ultimate Edition will have the Theatrical Cut or the Director's Cut. If it does, I'll buy the Ultimate Edition. If not, I'll be perfectly happy with the Director's Cut.

The standard DVD cover is awful, they really should have stuck with the original cinema poster (which is what they're doing here in the UK!), however I really like the 2-disc cover - just a shame there are so few extras for a double disc release... this really is one case where i'm happy to wait for the inevitable 3-disc ultimate edition (with all the extras including Black Freighter) out in the autumn.

mc_serenity wrote: Nevunderwood wrote: Sadly, I think because Marvel has oversaturated the market for close to a decade now, any other superhero film that comes along is just going to look stale at this point.

Stale? Are Dark Horse's "Hellboy" franchise or Warners/DC's "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight" stale in your opinion? I'm beginning to think there are some people who think "Marvel does it better" and refuse to see that other companies can do superb comic-book movies other than Marvel. Well, if you're gonna ask me then yes, there are elements of those films that are getting a little tired too...my comment was simply an objective observation about the rash of superhero films in the last decade - of which there is no doubt that Marvel has been leading the charge - I never stated anything about them being superior. You tell me, does the phrase "Marvel has oversaturated the market" sound remotely like praise to you? Furthermore, prefacing the sentence with the word "sadly" also implies that the whole thing is rather unfortunate. Either way, in my opinion The Watchmen comes off as a less interesting X-Men film. Not because X-Men are particularly better, but because there has already been 3 of them.

Nevunderwood wrote: Sadly, I think because Marvel has oversaturated the market for close to a decade now, any other superhero film that comes along is just going to look stale at this point.

Stale? Are Dark Horse's "Hellboy" franchise or Warners/DC's "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight" stale in your opinion? I'm beginning to think there are some people who think "Marvel does it better" and refuse to see that other companies can do superb comic-book movies other than Marvel.

Predictable standard first round releases with surprisingly good cover art. As always I'm down for the DC version. Anything that gives me more movie is fine by me. I'm wondering if there'll be any exclusives with this release at any of the major retailers.

I wish Hollywood would release 2 versions in the theater for that matter. I'd sit through another half hour of material, no problem. It's truly amazing how much better films are with the Extended or DC. Lord of the Rings, albeit 12 hours long, is so much better than the theatrical cut.

I swear I am going to start harming and hurting people for this movie (for good) if I don't get this on Blu Ray when it comes out. Plus 20 minutes of extra footage is the icing on the cake. The thing is though this comes out on the day Coraline comes out. We'll just have to see which does better.

I think as cool as the covers are, they could've been better. Why not use the graphic novel cover (the blood streak w/the smiley face) or the IMAX version of the poster (that poster is awsome except for how WATCHMEN covers most of Dr. Manhattan's face).

Also, if there really is a 5-disk Ultimate Blu-Ray edition coming out in the future, will there be a better DVD version too?

Note to the photoshop company. If Roshak is standing in a window, then Dr. Manhattan must be behind the glass or he will look like a Fairy floating on the man's shoulder. Second, I agree with the digital copy comment. Its something most folks don't use.

liminals wrote: I just found out that the Blu-ray will include both the Theatrical and Director's Cut while the 2-Disc DVD will only have the Director's Cut. Where did you heard that? It would be great if the Blu-ray included the theatrical cut

I just found out that the Blu-ray will include both the Theatrical and Director's Cut while the 2-Disc DVD will only have the Director's Cut. Also, the Ultimate Cut in December is supposed to include another 50 minutes of footage (most likely Black Freighter).

Pretty lousy cover artwork. Not to mention you KNOW there'll be some kind of uber-special boxed set edition eventually, with even more special features and oodles of who-knows-what-else in it. I'll hold out for that one.

No smiley on the spine? Well that sucks. I want the Gibbons comedian cover which seems to be the one used for some of the deluxe editions dotted around the net. At least as a background image behind those weird 'head' packages anyways.

I agree, there is no rush to buy this now. It is obvious by the weak extras this baby is going to get the ultimate treatment later this year just in time for Christmas. The same thing was done with the Dark Knight disk, though I had to go on and break down and get it, knowing all too well we will get stiffed for an ultimate edition down the road.

Watchmen critically was definitely a mixed bag. It ended up with a 64% fresh rating at Rottentomatoes, so I wouldn't say it had mostly negative reviews, but it wasn't a critical darling either. The critical response matched the overall moviegoer response.

Commerically, I would agree it was a failure. The film actually cost 150 million to make (that is according to Boxofficemojo and other sources), promoting the film easily cost 20 million (that is probably a conservative number too), it cost in the neighborhood of 170 million to film and promote. The film only made 107 million domestically and 70 million overseas, that is a total of 177 million. That means the film made a profit of 7 million and that is IF the promtion cost wasn't more than 20 million. Studios don't keep the lights running when they spend 170 million and only get a 7 million dollar profit. The DVD/BluRay sales will help to pad the profit margin, but make no mistake, we have seen the last of this kind of film for awhile.

After seeing the covers, I have only this to say: time for me to photoshop one myself... with one of the posters for example, which were great and had decent storytelling in themselves... not those cramped pieces of s***.

If the DVD's ultimate edition is comprised of 5 discs as the Blu ray is rumored to be, I'll be waiting just a tad more until it's released with some REAL extra features.

Warner never failed to underwhelm me for some reason... great movies (TDK and Watchmen, to name a few) but extremely low features that have ANYTHING to do with the movie. How can they justify that? What's the need of using cameras behind the scenes if you're not going to use them on any format's release, bunch of dopes?

Being a big fan of the GN, I was really excited to see the film. I thought the film was highly satisfying, and probably the best GN adaptation since Sin City. Though I know that there will be an "Absolute Edition" coming around the holidays, I'll still pick up the Director's Cut Blu Ray. The cover art is okay, but they should have done it like the Motion Comics and Black Freighter art, with Watchmen pointed upwards on the left side, and the image on the rest of the cover. It would look better to those who have the previous two releases. Maybe when the ultimate version comes out, they'll do that.

The cover art for the standard DVD is awful, way too cramped, the 2 disc DVD and Blu-Ray art are much better i think. Will pick up the Blu-Ray, and ill be picking up the Ultimate Cut this fall as well (cant help it, im a fanboy)

If you have an iPhone, an iPod Touch or any semi-large screened PMP (or even a damn laptop), you can make excellent use of the Digital Copy. And where does this notion that they're taking away features to include the Digital Copy come from? Sources? Anyone?

Now, we're assuming this is the extended cut that doesn't include the Tales of the Black Freighter footage, correct? Because if that's true, it's douchey for WB to not release that day-and-date with the regular editions. I'd rather just netflix it to get a quick fix, then wait it out till the inevitable Ultimate edition.

BoBoi wrote: Saw this in IMAX. The film left me a bit underwhelmed to be honest. But I'll pick it up on Blu anyway. Oh, and that's one terrible cover...

I think we need to change the name of this site from DVDActive to DVDCoverArtCritique. Because it never fails for every release thread to have at least one if not more comments about how bad the cover art sucks.

Com'on folks...do you really care about what the cover art looks like? Shouldn't what the spine looks like matter more? Since that is what we see on our shelves the most.

Cheddar J. Cheese wrote: Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and wait for the "Absolute" edition coming out later in the year. Yep me 2. will be a lot more extra`s on it (Snyder already said so) and the cut included in that release will be even longer. also: the covers are ok, but they gotta lose the digital copy banner!

Meh. I was completely underwhelmed by this film when I first saw the trailer and the actual movie didn't do much to alleviate that initial impression. Sadly, I think because Marvel has oversaturated the market for close to a decade now, any other superhero film that comes along is just going to look stale at this point....Solid rental for me (to see one more time) and then I'll wash my hands of it, thank you very much.

I absolutely loved this movie and saw it three times in the theater (twice in Imax.) I can't wait to watch it again. Can I get the DC without a digital copy? I can only hope for a single-disk steel book that will give me a better cover and the few special features they're offering...

WOW, what a bunch of C**P features. Should have theatrical and Directors cut on the Blu ray. I want to see the back cover and actually see what is on it. Screams a BIGGER addition coming out later. What a bunch a tools, I hate this.

The covers are meh. The Blu-Ray should have been just like the cover for the graphic novel, or one of the many cool posters that were released prior to release. Anyway, I'll probably rent the DC and hold off on the ultimate set Snyder was mentioning in interviews.

Stupid digital copy. Give us more extras! Nobody uses those Digital Copies. Great film, was a wee bit too long though. This films greatest attribute is the CGI. That is how CGI is supposed to be used. Take the audience where they would never thing to go and while doing so grab their attention and never let go. Plus, amazing characters. But, don't feel like I'd watch and re watch this.

The Blu Ray will be a definite buy. Depending on whether or not the inevitable release of an ultimate edition will have a longer cut of the movie, I will upgrade then. For now though, a Director's Cut will be fine with me.

Gah, I hate when they say "2 disc" anymore, it always means one of those worthless digital copies, which if you really need, you don't know how to use a computer and how you got to typing a post on this website is beyond me...

Loved this movie though, will be waiting for the special edition later on.

The reviews for "Watchmen" were mixed as opposed to mostly negative, and as for it's box-office performance -- it underperformed. It took $100 million to make the movie and it got that amount back plus a bit of change (and add in the foreign grosses, which were $70 million). If it was an outright failure, it would've made less than $100 million.

I personally liked this film a LOT more than Snyder's overhyped (and grossly overrated) "300." "Watchmen" has a lot of complexity, beauty and some good thought-provoking material to go along with the action. The thing is, I think the overfaithful adaptation put off a lot of the general audience who weren't familiar with or didn't read the graphic novel. (I do think the Dr. Manhattan backstory was a bit too much.)

I cant believe some would say the 2 disc BD cover looks awesome, nice or great. Its basically the standalone self character poster of Rorschach, only with broken pieces of glass scattered all over the place with the rest of the cast in the reflections.

Wow... a 2-disc edition that sounds just as cheap as the Dark Knight 2-disc edition... Warner really put all the stops. I'll just wait for the "Otherworldly Edition" to come out to see if anything substantial ABOUT the movie can be included... I mean come on, I love DVDs for the fact that you can go behind-the-scenes but since the Blu-Ray came out, nothing is done for DVD except to try and let it die slowly.

I wont keep my hopes up too much since Warner's the only studio (besides Lionsgate with their cheap editions) capable enough to deceive me with a forthcoming edition.

There will definitely be some sort of ultimate collector's edition sometime later this year. Zack Snyder couldn't shut up about it in his interviews, and there's no way they'd just leave us hanging like that (even Warner Brothers isn't THAT harsh). But I'll stick be getting this version just to hold me off until that other inevitable release...I loved this movie!

I am ready to bet $10 that Warner will release a special-ultimate-collector's edition similar to last year 300 or I am Legend two weeks before christmas on this one. This is not enough "sugar-coated"...